3 ms·

"Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are ... asking about an establishment's hours of operation ... and taking notes." So if I

by sorbus 15y ago

"Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are ... asking about an establishment's hours of operation ... and taking notes." So if I see an interesting business which is closed, ask someone if they know when it's open, and note that down so that I can return to it when it is, I would be reported as a suspicious person.

GHFigs 15y ago
What the policy actually describes as suspicious behavior is: "Engages security personnel in questions focusing on sensitive subjects (security information, hours of operation, shift changes, what security cameras film, etc.)." "Draws diagrams or takes notes (building plans, location of security cameras or security personnel, security shift changes, notes of weak security points, etc.)." What you said, by contrast, is bullshit.
- westicle 15y ago
  Your last comment is not necessary or helpful and detracts from the discussion in my opinion. Thanks for giving context to the grandparent post, but when compared to the actual wording of the policy it is certainly not "bullshit" and within the realms of reasonable interpretation. When you take into account how police officers practically interpret these policies I wouldn't be at all surprised if this behaviour was "caught" by the policy.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Disagree. I found the original comment to be far more toxic; while written in a level tone, it materially misrepresents the story, thus sidetracking us into a discussion of something that didn't happen.
- sorbus 15y ago
  Thank you for clarifying; however, as I was quoting directly from the linked article, in paragraph six (the ellipses I added did not change the meaning of the sentence noticeably), not from the actual policy, I think that you might be better served to call the article out as not accurately representing the policy rather than to call people out for taking the article at face value.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The article you're quoting links directly to the LAPD SAR, where the surrounding context (literally in the same sentence) to your "hours of operation" quote makes it obvious that your "found an interesting business" proposition isn't implicated. The article quoted the SAR out of context, and not only did you perpetuate that bad quote, but you actually amplified it by making up a narrative to go with it. The original text of the article is no defense for intellectual laziness or dishonesty.

by sorbus 15y ago

GHFigs 15y ago

What the policy actually describes as suspicious behavior is: "Engages security personnel in questions focusing on sensitive subjects (security information, hours of operation, shift changes, what security cameras film, etc.)." "Draws diagrams or takes notes (building plans, location of security cameras or security personnel, security shift changes, notes of weak security points, etc.)." What you said, by contrast, is bullshit.

westicle 15y ago
Your last comment is not necessary or helpful and detracts from the discussion in my opinion. Thanks for giving context to the grandparent post, but when compared to the actual wording of the policy it is certainly not "bullshit" and within the realms of reasonable interpretation. When you take into account how police officers practically interpret these policies I wouldn't be at all surprised if this behaviour was "caught" by the policy.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Disagree. I found the original comment to be far more toxic; while written in a level tone, it materially misrepresents the story, thus sidetracking us into a discussion of something that didn't happen.
sorbus 15y ago
Thank you for clarifying; however, as I was quoting directly from the linked article, in paragraph six (the ellipses I added did not change the meaning of the sentence noticeably), not from the actual policy, I think that you might be better served to call the article out as not accurately representing the policy rather than to call people out for taking the article at face value.
- tptacek 15y ago
  The article you're quoting links directly to the LAPD SAR, where the surrounding context (literally in the same sentence) to your "hours of operation" quote makes it obvious that your "found an interesting business" proposition isn't implicated. The article quoted the SAR out of context, and not only did you perpetuate that bad quote, but you actually amplified it by making up a narrative to go with it. The original text of the article is no defense for intellectual laziness or dishonesty.