11 ms·

You'd think they could come up with something constructive. Have the officers do community service among the residents while on the clock and in uniform. You'll

by jjeaff 7y ago

You'd think they could come up with something constructive. Have the officers do community service among the residents while on the clock and in uniform. You'll have even less crime that way.

steve19 7y ago
What makes you think there would be less crime when the crime rate is already very low? Spending less money on police and more on things such as social welfare will probably do more for crime than getting them to plant trees or whatever.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
On a military base, it's not so bad. They genuinely need to police drunk driving because you have a lot of young people with decent incomes on their own for the first time. Most American military bases are pretty aggressive about policing traffic issues, and it's apparently all to the good. They do things like place some crumpled car as a billboard somewhere prominent to remind you daily what your car might look like if you drive drunk, then post a count that gets updated daily "Days since last deadly accident" or something like that. And on the base in question, we had on base housing. One of the duties of the police was to let you in your house if you locked yourself out accidentally. (I did once.) But this article starts with a stake out actively trying to tempt someone to steal something. It's essentially entrapment, or not far from it.
- tjohns 7y ago
  That's not entrapment. At least in the US, entrapment has to pass two tests: 1. Was it a crime the suspect was unlikely or unwilling to commit otherwise? (The "subjective" test.) 2. Did the actions of officers cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime? (The "objective" test.) In other words, entrapment is when the police actively cause somebody to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise committed in similar circumstances. In the article, the police just left a case of beer inside a car. The police created a passive opportunity, but that's not enough for entrapment... the act of steeling that beer was entirely self meditated.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    It's essentially entrapment, or not far from it. That sentence has two qualifiers. I still have two people telling me I'm wrong. In my youth, I would have agreed that a thing should just not be touched if it's not yours because maybe they will come back for it. Someday. I'm still inclined to generally err in that direction, but I'm less judgy than I used to be of people who would be inclined to feel that a perishable -- like beer -- left out in the open for days on end must be basically abandoned and up for grabs because people don't typically buy consumables like that and leave them sitting out for days on end. It's not normal behavior. It was intended to be temptation. Whether it meets the legal definition of entrapment or not, it makes for a town I don't really want to visit. There's no telling how far down this slippery slope they will go to keep themselves entertained and prove their paychecks aren't simply a waste of money. I raised two kids. I've thought quite a lot about such things. I think setting up a "test" of that sort to see who will fall for it isn't nice behavior and shouldn't be done, especially not if your real motive is merely because you are bored.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      I don't understand how you think this way about ownership. If it's not yours and you don't enter into a transaction (the transaction can be implied in the case of give-aways) wherein the previous owner grants you ownership, then it stays not yours. Things in a car are pretty unambiguously not up-for-grabs to anyone who doesn't own the car.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        Things aren't always that cut and dried. For example: What if the car is also abandoned? I was raised to be extremely upstanding and responsible etc. But you can take that too far, which is why we have and need laws that cover when certain things end: statutes of limitations, laws declaring when property is deemed abandoned, etc. Every state in the US has laws in place that spell out under what conditions the government or another party can claim your real estate. The local government typically claims it if you haven't paid your taxes in X amount of time and resells it. If it is mortgaged, the bank can claim it if you fail to pay for X amount of time. States also spell out when a total stranger can file legal claim on your real estate. This usually involves them openly living there, getting their mail there and paying the utilities and the like for a number of years. Most states require a period of between ten and twenty years. The most liberal states only require five years. The most conservative -- Texas -- requires 30 years. Countries that don't have solid processes in place for returning seemingly abandoned real estate to use by allowing some other party to establish legal claim to it wind up having extremely thorny problems, including intractable poverty for large swaths of the population. Problems with trying to establish clear legal ownership in countries with overly conservative laws or traditions in that regard is one of the biggest challenges faced by Habitat for Humanity. Lack of ability to readily and easily say "We don't think they are coming back for it, and if they do, too bad so sad, time's up" actively undermines a functional society far worse than the occasional petty crime (such as some swiped beer). I'm personally excessively conservative about such things. But I'm old enough to recognize that different people draw those lines in different places and that people less conservative than me don't necessarily deserve to be viewed as bad actors. They certainly don't deserve to be tricked into committing a crime so that bored police officers have something to do.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  It's not entrapment, because normal people don't see other people's stuff and think, "oh it's not locked down, guess it's mine now."
  - UncleEntity 7y ago
    Government property on a military base that isn't locked down/guarded is pretty much fair game since everyone will reallocate resources if they are mission critical...and everyone knows this so if you really want to keep your stuff you need it guarded. Personal gear exempted from this rule since Joes typically don't steal from other Joes unless they enjoy painful retribution.
- walrus01 7y ago
  > On a military base, it's not so bad. They genuinely need to police drunk driving because you have a lot of young people with decent incomes on their own for the first time. The stereotypes about boots buying Dodge Chargers, Mustangs, Camaros and such on 21% interest rates are very real. source: personal experience, former civilian military contractor
okmokmz 7y ago
That would be nice. Unfortunately having less crime is not a goal of many police departments, DAs, prosecutors, prison guards and employees, bail bondsman, and basically the entire American criminal "justice" system. The more people they have to harass, the more money they can generate for themselves and all the sketchy for profit companies involved
- closeparen 7y ago
  Generating revenue through fees and fines is excellent politics: you satisfy the voters' demands for both low taxes and robust services at the same time. The people who end up paying aren't happy, but they're not going to vote.
- vharuck 7y ago
  The most common example I see of missed opportunities to improve safety over increase revenue is with traffic cops. They often hide, wait for a person to speed by, then pull out and give them a ticket. 10 minutes at least from the time they're pulled over, and who knows how long lying in wait. And it gets one car to drive safely for a day to a month after the incident. Compare that to a situation I just saw on a major highway. One state trooper driving exactly the speed limit in the passing lane. For at least 20 miles, he kept a dozen cars at a safe speed. Not to mention preventing any other unsafe driving. Sure, it only lasted 20 minutes from my point of view, but if he just drove around for a few hours in plain sight, that's a lot of cars driving safely. Sadly, it doesn't generate revenue.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    While there is significant overlap between driving lawfully and driving safely, they are not identical, so please do not use them interchangeably. When a cop is doing that pace car thing, the safest thing to do is just get off that road, at least for a few minutes, because all of those drivers will be paying more attention to their legality than to their safety. For 20 miles, that example cop kept a dozen cars bunched up together, afraid to pass. It is likely that a pace car cop will pull someone over eventually anyway, so don't even spin that wheel of chance. There are different theories of what "safe driving" is, and the one you subscribe to will affect your opinion of pace car policing.

by jjeaff 7y ago

You'd think they could come up with something constructive. Have the officers do community service among the residents while on the clock and in uniform. You'll have even less crime that way.

steve19 7y ago

What makes you think there would be less crime when the crime rate is already very low? Spending less money on police and more on things such as social welfare will probably do more for crime than getting them to plant trees or whatever.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

On a military base, it's not so bad. They genuinely need to police drunk driving because you have a lot of young people with decent incomes on their own for the first time. Most American military bases are pretty aggressive about policing traffic issues, and it's apparently all to the good. They do things like place some crumpled car as a billboard somewhere prominent to remind you daily what your car might look like if you drive drunk, then post a count that gets updated daily "Days since last deadly accident" or something like that. And on the base in question, we had on base housing. One of the duties of the police was to let you in your house if you locked yourself out accidentally. (I did once.) But this article starts with a stake out actively trying to tempt someone to steal something. It's essentially entrapment, or not far from it.

tjohns 7y ago
That's not entrapment. At least in the US, entrapment has to pass two tests: 1. Was it a crime the suspect was unlikely or unwilling to commit otherwise? (The "subjective" test.) 2. Did the actions of officers cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime? (The "objective" test.) In other words, entrapment is when the police actively cause somebody to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise committed in similar circumstances. In the article, the police just left a case of beer inside a car. The police created a passive opportunity, but that's not enough for entrapment... the act of steeling that beer was entirely self meditated.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  It's essentially entrapment, or not far from it. That sentence has two qualifiers. I still have two people telling me I'm wrong. In my youth, I would have agreed that a thing should just not be touched if it's not yours because maybe they will come back for it. Someday. I'm still inclined to generally err in that direction, but I'm less judgy than I used to be of people who would be inclined to feel that a perishable -- like beer -- left out in the open for days on end must be basically abandoned and up for grabs because people don't typically buy consumables like that and leave them sitting out for days on end. It's not normal behavior. It was intended to be temptation. Whether it meets the legal definition of entrapment or not, it makes for a town I don't really want to visit. There's no telling how far down this slippery slope they will go to keep themselves entertained and prove their paychecks aren't simply a waste of money. I raised two kids. I've thought quite a lot about such things. I think setting up a "test" of that sort to see who will fall for it isn't nice behavior and shouldn't be done, especially not if your real motive is merely because you are bored.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    I don't understand how you think this way about ownership. If it's not yours and you don't enter into a transaction (the transaction can be implied in the case of give-aways) wherein the previous owner grants you ownership, then it stays not yours. Things in a car are pretty unambiguously not up-for-grabs to anyone who doesn't own the car.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      Things aren't always that cut and dried. For example: What if the car is also abandoned? I was raised to be extremely upstanding and responsible etc. But you can take that too far, which is why we have and need laws that cover when certain things end: statutes of limitations, laws declaring when property is deemed abandoned, etc. Every state in the US has laws in place that spell out under what conditions the government or another party can claim your real estate. The local government typically claims it if you haven't paid your taxes in X amount of time and resells it. If it is mortgaged, the bank can claim it if you fail to pay for X amount of time. States also spell out when a total stranger can file legal claim on your real estate. This usually involves them openly living there, getting their mail there and paying the utilities and the like for a number of years. Most states require a period of between ten and twenty years. The most liberal states only require five years. The most conservative -- Texas -- requires 30 years. Countries that don't have solid processes in place for returning seemingly abandoned real estate to use by allowing some other party to establish legal claim to it wind up having extremely thorny problems, including intractable poverty for large swaths of the population. Problems with trying to establish clear legal ownership in countries with overly conservative laws or traditions in that regard is one of the biggest challenges faced by Habitat for Humanity. Lack of ability to readily and easily say "We don't think they are coming back for it, and if they do, too bad so sad, time's up" actively undermines a functional society far worse than the occasional petty crime (such as some swiped beer). I'm personally excessively conservative about such things. But I'm old enough to recognize that different people draw those lines in different places and that people less conservative than me don't necessarily deserve to be viewed as bad actors. They certainly don't deserve to be tricked into committing a crime so that bored police officers have something to do.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
It's not entrapment, because normal people don't see other people's stuff and think, "oh it's not locked down, guess it's mine now."
- UncleEntity 7y ago
  Government property on a military base that isn't locked down/guarded is pretty much fair game since everyone will reallocate resources if they are mission critical...and everyone knows this so if you really want to keep your stuff you need it guarded. Personal gear exempted from this rule since Joes typically don't steal from other Joes unless they enjoy painful retribution.
walrus01 7y ago
> On a military base, it's not so bad. They genuinely need to police drunk driving because you have a lot of young people with decent incomes on their own for the first time. The stereotypes about boots buying Dodge Chargers, Mustangs, Camaros and such on 21% interest rates are very real. source: personal experience, former civilian military contractor

okmokmz 7y ago

That would be nice. Unfortunately having less crime is not a goal of many police departments, DAs, prosecutors, prison guards and employees, bail bondsman, and basically the entire American criminal "justice" system. The more people they have to harass, the more money they can generate for themselves and all the sketchy for profit companies involved

closeparen 7y ago
Generating revenue through fees and fines is excellent politics: you satisfy the voters' demands for both low taxes and robust services at the same time. The people who end up paying aren't happy, but they're not going to vote.
vharuck 7y ago
The most common example I see of missed opportunities to improve safety over increase revenue is with traffic cops. They often hide, wait for a person to speed by, then pull out and give them a ticket. 10 minutes at least from the time they're pulled over, and who knows how long lying in wait. And it gets one car to drive safely for a day to a month after the incident. Compare that to a situation I just saw on a major highway. One state trooper driving exactly the speed limit in the passing lane. For at least 20 miles, he kept a dozen cars at a safe speed. Not to mention preventing any other unsafe driving. Sure, it only lasted 20 minutes from my point of view, but if he just drove around for a few hours in plain sight, that's a lot of cars driving safely. Sadly, it doesn't generate revenue.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  While there is significant overlap between driving lawfully and driving safely, they are not identical, so please do not use them interchangeably. When a cop is doing that pace car thing, the safest thing to do is just get off that road, at least for a few minutes, because all of those drivers will be paying more attention to their legality than to their safety. For 20 miles, that example cop kept a dozen cars bunched up together, afraid to pass. It is likely that a pace car cop will pull someone over eventually anyway, so don't even spin that wheel of chance. There are different theories of what "safe driving" is, and the one you subscribe to will affect your opinion of pace car policing.