5 ms·

Bait cars are a police-state tactic. Just normal, Peelian-principled policing for me, thanks. Hunting and tracking, not fishing and trapping. Which is to say

Bait cars are a police-state tactic. Just normal, Peelian-principled policing for me, thanks. Hunting and tracking, not fishing and trapping. Which is to say make better efforts to actually solve property crimes that occur naturally, rather than manufacturing crimes for the purpose of resolving them more easily.

gjs278 7y ago
anyone that steals a bait car would have stolen a real one given the chance
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  In a high enough crime area otherwise honest people are gonna engage in opportunistic crime because "if I don't someone will". That's also exactly the kind of place the police are gonna go fishing. I know of more than one junk car that's been dragged out of a particular swamp (because scrap prices were high) with no attempt made to contact the rightful owner. That would get you a felony charge in my state (I'm sure a good lawyer could beat it but still). I know that that's not the same as stealing a bait car but it's pretty close.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    >otherwise honest people are gonna engage in opportunistic crime because "if I don't someone will" I mean I don't live in a high crime area so maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't sound like the behavior of an "otherwise honest person".
  - waste_monk 7y ago
    >In a high enough crime area otherwise honest people are gonna engage in opportunistic crime because "if I don't someone will". That is probably the weakest excuse for criminal behaviour I've ever heard. "Someone else was going to steal that car, so it might as well be me"? Bullshit. If someone's an "honest person" who only engages in crime when they think they can get away with it due to it being unlikely the police will follow up, they never had personal integrity or principles to begin with - they just hadn't been put in a situation where the cost/value proposition of commmiting a crime was worth it.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Maybe stealing cars is a bit of the stretch but if you create more opportunity for crime there will be more crime. A better example is when the cops stick an under cover officer on the street corner as a hooker and of course she gets picked up because someone who would never pick up a hooker sees one that doesn't have a million hard miles on her and decides to give it a go. I know my local police used to leave rolls of copper wire on job sites to bait people to steal them. Of course nobody with a brain would leave an unsecured roll of copper wire around like that so the opportunity for the crime doesn't normally ever exist except when the police are baiting. Both those examples are baiting people who wouldn't otherwise consider the risk reward to be worth it to engage in crime.
      - jcranmer 7y ago
        Your argument here is boiling down to someone saying "I'm normally a law-abiding citizen, but the crime was just so easy to commit, how could I resist?" To which the proper response is of course "Learn some self-restraint, that's how you could resist."
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Well yes of course but people's morals get flexible when relatively (relative to them) large amounts of benefit to them (usually money) are involved. For example, I'm too well paid to shoot you over $10, $100, $1000, $10k, etc. but you keep tacking on zeros and eventually it gets tempting. It's like that but with smaller dollar amounts. People rationalize petty theft all the time by saying things like "well it was there and they weren't using it and I was going to put it (or the money made selling it) to good use". They know it's wrong but they just can't help themselves.
        logfromblammo 7y ago
        "You wouldn't be poor, if you worked hard enough to earn more money." "You wouldn't be fat, if you ate a reasonable amount of healthy foods instead of calorie-rich junk." "You wouldn't be a criminal, if you had enough moral fiber to obey the law." I think you are intentionally ignoring a lot of circumstantial factors that have been scrubbed from the strawman hypotheticals. I believe the canonical example for rating someone on a scale of morality is as follows: Jack's child is very sick, and may die. The doctor gave him a prescription for a drug that would cure his child in one dose, but when he took it to the pharmacist, he found that they had some in stock, but that single dose cost more than he has ever saved at one time, and even if he could get a loan big enough to buy it, he would never be able to pay off the debt. Jack did notice some holes in the pharmacy's security, though. Should he break in to steal the drug, to save his child? Why? There are a lot of ways to answer the why, for the question as posed. We are also adding some additional questions. When Jack is caught, how severely should he be punished? Does the reasoning behind the situation change if the police operate the pharmacy as a front, and intentionally inflate the price of life-saving drugs and weaken security, in order to more easily catch people who might rob pharmacies, if allowed the opportunity?
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "I know of more than one junk car that's been dragged out of a particular swamp" Could you provide more information about how this...is a thing? Where it's reasonably plausible to find the owner? And a felony?
UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Bait cars are not manufacturing crimes. Those are natural and organic crimes. Unless undercover officers actively entice somebody to steal them or something? That would be entrapment it is already not allowed I think.
- ballenf 7y ago
  You’re probably right, but we can probably all agree there is a line somewhere that we don’t want police crossing with regard to baiting criminal activity. I’d just rather us not have to debate where the line should be and be ever vigilant as police push the boundaries.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    In the traditional crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity, baiting and trapping artificially supplies the opportunity, and in some cases also the method, such that crimes that would not normally occur take place in such a way that it is easier to prosecute them than the naturally occurring crimes. It replaces the pursuit and prosecution of people who have committed crimes in the community with jamming up all the usual suspects. It's lazy, and it takes resources away from victims waiting for satisfaction. "Sorry, we aren't going to look for the person who robbed you, but we arrested 30 folks who are criminally predisposed to do exactly the same crime against cars similar to yours, if they're parked nearby, with unlocked doors, and pawnable valuables easily detectable inside. One of them might even be the person who robbed you! We're not going to check, of course, but you can maybe pretend that we caught them, to make yourself feel better." Instead of setting a bait car, and watching just that one while it's out, watch over as many cars as possible to detect and prevent break-ins, all the time--as the community expects its police to do, to earn their pay. It may be effective in the short term, but it also undermines community trust in the justice system, which is critical for policing to be effective in the long term. If you round up and persecute all the usual suspects at regular intervals, their friends and family will stop helping you, and start shunning you whenever you come 'round to "help".
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago

gjs278 7y ago

anyone that steals a bait car would have stolen a real one given the chance

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
In a high enough crime area otherwise honest people are gonna engage in opportunistic crime because "if I don't someone will". That's also exactly the kind of place the police are gonna go fishing. I know of more than one junk car that's been dragged out of a particular swamp (because scrap prices were high) with no attempt made to contact the rightful owner. That would get you a felony charge in my state (I'm sure a good lawyer could beat it but still). I know that that's not the same as stealing a bait car but it's pretty close.
- freehunter 7y ago
  >otherwise honest people are gonna engage in opportunistic crime because "if I don't someone will" I mean I don't live in a high crime area so maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't sound like the behavior of an "otherwise honest person".
- waste_monk 7y ago
  >In a high enough crime area otherwise honest people are gonna engage in opportunistic crime because "if I don't someone will". That is probably the weakest excuse for criminal behaviour I've ever heard. "Someone else was going to steal that car, so it might as well be me"? Bullshit. If someone's an "honest person" who only engages in crime when they think they can get away with it due to it being unlikely the police will follow up, they never had personal integrity or principles to begin with - they just hadn't been put in a situation where the cost/value proposition of commmiting a crime was worth it.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Maybe stealing cars is a bit of the stretch but if you create more opportunity for crime there will be more crime. A better example is when the cops stick an under cover officer on the street corner as a hooker and of course she gets picked up because someone who would never pick up a hooker sees one that doesn't have a million hard miles on her and decides to give it a go. I know my local police used to leave rolls of copper wire on job sites to bait people to steal them. Of course nobody with a brain would leave an unsecured roll of copper wire around like that so the opportunity for the crime doesn't normally ever exist except when the police are baiting. Both those examples are baiting people who wouldn't otherwise consider the risk reward to be worth it to engage in crime.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      Your argument here is boiling down to someone saying "I'm normally a law-abiding citizen, but the crime was just so easy to commit, how could I resist?" To which the proper response is of course "Learn some self-restraint, that's how you could resist."
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Well yes of course but people's morals get flexible when relatively (relative to them) large amounts of benefit to them (usually money) are involved. For example, I'm too well paid to shoot you over $10, $100, $1000, $10k, etc. but you keep tacking on zeros and eventually it gets tempting. It's like that but with smaller dollar amounts. People rationalize petty theft all the time by saying things like "well it was there and they weren't using it and I was going to put it (or the money made selling it) to good use". They know it's wrong but they just can't help themselves.
      - logfromblammo 7y ago
        "You wouldn't be poor, if you worked hard enough to earn more money." "You wouldn't be fat, if you ate a reasonable amount of healthy foods instead of calorie-rich junk." "You wouldn't be a criminal, if you had enough moral fiber to obey the law." I think you are intentionally ignoring a lot of circumstantial factors that have been scrubbed from the strawman hypotheticals. I believe the canonical example for rating someone on a scale of morality is as follows: Jack's child is very sick, and may die. The doctor gave him a prescription for a drug that would cure his child in one dose, but when he took it to the pharmacist, he found that they had some in stock, but that single dose cost more than he has ever saved at one time, and even if he could get a loan big enough to buy it, he would never be able to pay off the debt. Jack did notice some holes in the pharmacy's security, though. Should he break in to steal the drug, to save his child? Why? There are a lot of ways to answer the why, for the question as posed. We are also adding some additional questions. When Jack is caught, how severely should he be punished? Does the reasoning behind the situation change if the police operate the pharmacy as a front, and intentionally inflate the price of life-saving drugs and weaken security, in order to more easily catch people who might rob pharmacies, if allowed the opportunity?
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "I know of more than one junk car that's been dragged out of a particular swamp" Could you provide more information about how this...is a thing? Where it's reasonably plausible to find the owner? And a felony?

UnFleshedOne 7y ago

Bait cars are not manufacturing crimes. Those are natural and organic crimes. Unless undercover officers actively entice somebody to steal them or something? That would be entrapment it is already not allowed I think.

ballenf 7y ago
You’re probably right, but we can probably all agree there is a line somewhere that we don’t want police crossing with regard to baiting criminal activity. I’d just rather us not have to debate where the line should be and be ever vigilant as police push the boundaries.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  In the traditional crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity, baiting and trapping artificially supplies the opportunity, and in some cases also the method, such that crimes that would not normally occur take place in such a way that it is easier to prosecute them than the naturally occurring crimes. It replaces the pursuit and prosecution of people who have committed crimes in the community with jamming up all the usual suspects. It's lazy, and it takes resources away from victims waiting for satisfaction. "Sorry, we aren't going to look for the person who robbed you, but we arrested 30 folks who are criminally predisposed to do exactly the same crime against cars similar to yours, if they're parked nearby, with unlocked doors, and pawnable valuables easily detectable inside. One of them might even be the person who robbed you! We're not going to check, of course, but you can maybe pretend that we caught them, to make yourself feel better." Instead of setting a bait car, and watching just that one while it's out, watch over as many cars as possible to detect and prevent break-ins, all the time--as the community expects its police to do, to earn their pay. It may be effective in the short term, but it also undermines community trust in the justice system, which is critical for policing to be effective in the long term. If you round up and persecute all the usual suspects at regular intervals, their friends and family will stop helping you, and start shunning you whenever you come 'round to "help".
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago