10 ms·

I used to live in an apartment complex across the street from a gas station in Houston, TX. It was owned by an older subcontinental Asian (Nepali?) man and his

I used to live in an apartment complex across the street from a gas station in Houston, TX. It was owned by an older subcontinental Asian (Nepali?) man and his family. I'd go in about once every two weeks. One day, I came in and that family was gone; they'd been replaced by a younger cohort of either Indian or Pakistani men and women. The new owners were polite and professional, but far less friendly. Soon after, bulletproof glass went up between the registers and the customers, the product selection became more sparse, and the warm yellow lights were replaced with bright LEDs. Eventually I inquired why the gas station had changed, and the man at the register explained that there were several armed robberies during the time period that I'd been living there. I was surprised; this gas station was in a fairly decent part of town near NASA, and there was a tennis club right next to the apartment complex. I used to walk barefoot from my apartment to the courts. I'd never heard sirens or ever noticed that anyone had been robbed. It must have taken 6-10 young men fewer than a combined 60 minutes across several robberies to completely alter the dynamic of the gas station. Their hour's worth of work caused hundreds of hours in transfers, equipment moving, inspections, storage, and installation. The experience of shopping at that gas station became unpleasant, and I avoided the station when I could. Soon after, I moved to a richer, nicer, quieter neighborhood down the road (for unrelated reasons--the apartment complex had a pest problem.) But I often think about that shop; there are now children growing up in that apartment complex who think that "gas stations" include bulletproof glass and wary stares, instead of warm lighting and friendly greetings. That's their vision of society; even if those children are not criminals themselves, they expect to be treated like them. They're like children who don't remember plane travel before 9/11, except instead of the hold-up at the TSA, it's a hold-up in a gas station. This is what I think about when I hear about large-scale property crime like these train thefts. Sure, it's just property. But it is the docile, rule-following, peaceful majority (to which I and the rest of HN belong) that creates and finances all the property that ends up stolen and destroyed; allow this stability of commerce to be interrupted by wanton theft or violence and they will flee, retreat into themselves, hire private security forces, and produce less. Poverty may encourage crime, but crime always creates poverty.

kepler1 5y ago
The people who suffer most from those in charge tolerating crime are the poor and less privileged -- through direct crime, and negative effects on their communities -- as well as especially children (problems that affect families always affect kids the worst). What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand is that the actions/policies they promote, believing that they're reducing the stigma or making it more "equitable" by reducing the penalties for crime, end up hurting most people instead of solving the problem. They get to feel better that they didn't lock up so many people of color (to use today's fad grouping), but the greater community who are poor and less privileged are actually the ones paying for the crimes now being overlooked/ignored. The rich can/will move away and leave these places to suffer on their own. The poor, who most rely on government to protect them, watch as their concerns and safety get swept under the rug of feel-good defund-the-police policies as those in charge have no idea (or actively ignore) what they've incentivized.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand ... Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. > who think they mean well You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
  - kepler1 5y ago
    wolverine876 >>Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. >>You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies. Nope. You in fact are probably among those who believe they are the "holder of Truth" in how much you believe in your exaggerated position and its importance. Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. Many are poor. And more often than not, need and value the protection of police and government for their communities. You say you listened to the communities, but you actually just decided to hear the loudest/most vocal people who latched on to some headline-grabbing idea that doesn't represent the bulk of what daily life is in this country. And you overexaggerate the proportion of people of color who are experiencing these issues versus living normal, striving, lives. Of course you are -- only that story fits your desire to create disproportionate attention to the issue. And you took that idea and thought that using it to upend the systems of law would benefit some small symbolic group. Yes there are some incidents of police brutality and misconduct, but you would no more say that that should be grounds to dismantle a system of law any more than you would say that a few bad apples should be used to prejudge a people. I don't claim to speak on behalf of any community. You certainly do. The dismantling of justice systems / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. And your last sentence just illustrates the blinders you have on to evidence of increased crime in places with newly-tolerant anti-policing policies. Don't be so self-righteous and confident in your position because you think you're morally correct.

kepler1 5y ago

The people who suffer most from those in charge tolerating crime are the poor and less privileged -- through direct crime, and negative effects on their communities -- as well as especially children (problems that affect families always affect kids the worst). What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand is that the actions/policies they promote, believing that they're reducing the stigma or making it more "equitable" by reducing the penalties for crime, end up hurting most people instead of solving the problem. They get to feel better that they didn't lock up so many people of color (to use today's fad grouping), but the greater community who are poor and less privileged are actually the ones paying for the crimes now being overlooked/ignored. The rich can/will move away and leave these places to suffer on their own. The poor, who most rely on government to protect them, watch as their concerns and safety get swept under the rug of feel-good defund-the-police policies as those in charge have no idea (or actively ignore) what they've incentivized.

wolverine876 5y ago
> What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand ... Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. > who think they mean well You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
- kepler1 5y ago
  wolverine876 >>Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. >>You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies. Nope. You in fact are probably among those who believe they are the "holder of Truth" in how much you believe in your exaggerated position and its importance. Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. Many are poor. And more often than not, need and value the protection of police and government for their communities. You say you listened to the communities, but you actually just decided to hear the loudest/most vocal people who latched on to some headline-grabbing idea that doesn't represent the bulk of what daily life is in this country. And you overexaggerate the proportion of people of color who are experiencing these issues versus living normal, striving, lives. Of course you are -- only that story fits your desire to create disproportionate attention to the issue. And you took that idea and thought that using it to upend the systems of law would benefit some small symbolic group. Yes there are some incidents of police brutality and misconduct, but you would no more say that that should be grounds to dismantle a system of law any more than you would say that a few bad apples should be used to prejudge a people. I don't claim to speak on behalf of any community. You certainly do. The dismantling of justice systems / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. And your last sentence just illustrates the blinders you have on to evidence of increased crime in places with newly-tolerant anti-policing policies. Don't be so self-righteous and confident in your position because you think you're morally correct.